AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Meta oversight board12/27/2023 In Myanmar, where hate speech has contributed to a genocide against the Rohingya, advocates have begged for stricter enforcement. In Hong Kong, where the pro-democracy movement has used social media to organize protests, activists rely on Facebook’s free-expression principles for protection against the state. The board has jurisdiction over every Facebook user in the world, but intuitions about freedom of speech vary dramatically across political and cultural divides. This kind of muddy uncertainty seemed inevitable. In the end, the group voted to restore the photo, though no one knew exactly how to write that into a rule. Carmen Scurato, who works at Free Press, an Internet-advocacy organization, pointed out the historical disadvantage of women, and argued that hate-speech policies ought to take power dynamics into account. “There has to be an exception for humor.” Facebook’s rules did include a humor exception, for instances in which the user’s intent was clear, but it was difficult to discern this person’s motivation, and attendees worried that a broad carve-out for jokes could easily provide cover for hate speech. Gore.įor our first case, the moderator projected a picture of a smiling girl in a yearbook photo, with a cartoon thought bubble that read “Kill All Men.” Facebook had removed the post for violating its hate-speech rules, which ban attacks based on “sex, gender identity.” To many, this seemed simplistic. I sat between Jeff Jarvis, a journalism professor, and Ben Ginsberg, a Republican lawyer who represented George W. At the workshop in New York, in the hotel basement, participants sat at tables of eight or nine and ran simulations of cases. “My job was to go all over the world and get as much feedback as possible,” Zoe Darmé, who oversaw the consultation process, told me. To come up with ideas, the company held workshops with experts in Singapore, New Delhi, Nairobi, Mexico City, Berlin, and New York. In the beginning, Facebook had no idea how the board would work. Nathaniel Persily, a law professor at Stanford, told me, “How the board considers the issues and acts in that case will have dramatic implications for the future of the board, and perhaps for online speech in general.” In the next few months, it will decide an even larger question: whether Donald Trump should be cut off indefinitely from his millions of followers for his role in inciting the insurrection at the Capitol, on January 6th. Last month, the board ruled on its first slate of cases, which dealt with, among other topics, the glorification of Nazis and misinformation about the coronavirus pandemic. In 2019, Facebook agreed to let me report on the process, and I spent eighteen months following its development. Kate Klonick on the power of Facebook’s Oversight Board, from The New Yorker Radio Hour and Radiolab. “Maybe there are some calls that just aren’t good for the company to make by itself,” he told me. shouldn’t have complete control over the limits of our political discourse. Zuckerberg said he had come to believe that a C.E.O. Its decisions would be binding, overruling even those of Mark Zuckerberg, the company’s founder. Facebook promised to change that with the Oversight Board: it would assemble a council of sage advisers-the group eventually included humanitarian activists, a former Prime Minister, and a Nobel laureate-who would hear appeals over what kind of speech should be allowed on the site. But in the past few years, as conspiracy theories, hate speech, and disinformation have spread on the platform, critics have come to worry that the company poses a danger to democracy. Since its founding, in 2004, Facebook had modelled itself as a haven of free expression on the Internet. “Clap if you can hear me,” the moderator, a woman dressed in a black jumpsuit, said. I sneaked in late and settled near the front. The participants had all signed nondisclosure agreements. The company had convened the group to discuss the Oversight Board, a sort of private Supreme Court that it was creating to help govern speech on its platforms. There were also party favors: Facebook-branded notebooks and pens. The room was laid out a bit like a technologist’s wedding, with a nametag and an iPad at each seat, and large succulents as centerpieces. On a morning in May, 2019, forty-three lawyers, academics, and media experts gathered in the windowless basement of the NoMad New York hotel for a private meeting.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |